From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [patch00/05]: Containers(V2)- Introduction From: Alan Cox In-Reply-To: <451172AB.2070103@yahoo.com.au> References: <1158718568.29000.44.camel@galaxy.corp.google.com> <4510D3F4.1040009@yahoo.com.au> <451172AB.2070103@yahoo.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:40:28 +0100 Message-Id: <1158774028.7705.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Christoph Lameter , rohitseth@google.com, CKRM-Tech , devel@openvz.org, linux-kernel , Linux Memory Management List-ID: Ar Iau, 2006-09-21 am 02:56 +1000, ysgrifennodd Nick Piggin: > But as I said above, I don't know what the containers and workload > management people want exactly... The recent discussions about using > nodes and cpusets for memory workload management does seem like a > promising idea, and if it would avoid the need for this kind of > per-page tracking entirely, then that would probably be even better. I think you can roughly break it down to - I want one group of users not to be able to screw another group of users or the box but don't care about anything else. The basic beancounter stuff handles this. Generally they also want maximal sharing. - I want to charge people for portions of machine use (mostly accounting and some fairness) - I don't want any user to be able to hog the system to the harm of the others but don't care about overcommit of idle resources (think about the 5000 apaches on a box case) - I want to be able to divide resources reasonably accurately all the time between groups of users Alan -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org